niryuu/sni-each-converted huggingface dataset:
CONTEXT: The Transformers aren't very well explored in the Michael Bay movies, so we'll have to judge according to the other (better explored) continuities. While the process of switching alternate modes in the movie seemed effortless, it might not have been. In other continuities the switch is either energy consuming or a major physical operation. So just changing to another vehicle might be a very expensive step that one does not take lightly. Also, the alt-mode seems to be a very personal aspect for each Transformer, which serve a similar function as clothes do to humans. They are a reflection of the owner, and once it is chosen it tends to stay the same. Transformers have been known to keep the same alt mode for thousands of years, which isn't really that long when you remember that their life span can stretch into the millions of years.  <sep>  Q: Why do the Transformers always transform into the same cars? A: just changing to another vehicle might be a very expensive step that one does not take lightly  Q: Why is changing into another vehicle so difficult? A: the alt-mode seems to be a very personal aspect for each Transformer, which serve a similar function as clothes do to humans  <sep> FOLLOWUP_Q: What is the alt-mode and why is it significant?
Output: Yes
CONTEXT: The Transformers aren't very well explored in the Michael Bay movies, so we'll have to judge according to the other (better explored) continuities. While the process of switching alternate modes in the movie seemed effortless, it might not have been. In other continuities the switch is either energy consuming or a major physical operation. So just changing to another vehicle might be a very expensive step that one does not take lightly. Also, the alt-mode seems to be a very personal aspect for each Transformer, which serve a similar function as clothes do to humans. They are a reflection of the owner, and once it is chosen it tends to stay the same. Transformers have been known to keep the same alt mode for thousands of years, which isn't really that long when you remember that their life span can stretch into the millions of years.  <sep>  Q: Why do the Transformers always transform into the same cars? A: just changing to another vehicle might be a very expensive step that one does not take lightly  Q: Why is changing into another vehicle so difficult? A: the alt-mode seems to be a very personal aspect for each Transformer, which serve a similar function as clothes do to humans  Q: What is the alt-mode and why is it significant? A: a very personal aspect for each Transformer, which serve a similar function as clothes do to humans. They are a reflection of the owner  <sep> FOLLOWUP_Q: How do the vehicles reflect the personality of the transformers?
Output: Yes
CONTEXT: The Transformers aren't very well explored in the Michael Bay movies, so we'll have to judge according to the other (better explored) continuities. While the process of switching alternate modes in the movie seemed effortless, it might not have been. In other continuities the switch is either energy consuming or a major physical operation. So just changing to another vehicle might be a very expensive step that one does not take lightly. Also, the alt-mode seems to be a very personal aspect for each Transformer, which serve a similar function as clothes do to humans. They are a reflection of the owner, and once it is chosen it tends to stay the same. Transformers have been known to keep the same alt mode for thousands of years, which isn't really that long when you remember that their life span can stretch into the millions of years.  <sep>  Q: Why do the Transformers always transform into the same cars? A: just changing to another vehicle might be a very expensive step that one does not take lightly  Q: Why is changing into another vehicle so difficult? A: the alt-mode seems to be a very personal aspect for each Transformer, which serve a similar function as clothes do to humans  Q: What is the alt-mode and why is it significant? A: a very personal aspect for each Transformer, which serve a similar function as clothes do to humans. They are a reflection of the owner  Q: How do the vehicles reflect the personality of the transformers? A: a similar function as clothes do to humans  <sep> FOLLOWUP_Q: What else can you tell me about the transformers?
Output: Yes
CONTEXT: The Transformers aren't very well explored in the Michael Bay movies, so we'll have to judge according to the other (better explored) continuities. While the process of switching alternate modes in the movie seemed effortless, it might not have been. In other continuities the switch is either energy consuming or a major physical operation. So just changing to another vehicle might be a very expensive step that one does not take lightly. Also, the alt-mode seems to be a very personal aspect for each Transformer, which serve a similar function as clothes do to humans. They are a reflection of the owner, and once it is chosen it tends to stay the same. Transformers have been known to keep the same alt mode for thousands of years, which isn't really that long when you remember that their life span can stretch into the millions of years.  <sep>  Q: Why do the Transformers always transform into the same cars? A: just changing to another vehicle might be a very expensive step that one does not take lightly  Q: Why is changing into another vehicle so difficult? A: the alt-mode seems to be a very personal aspect for each Transformer, which serve a similar function as clothes do to humans  Q: What is the alt-mode and why is it significant? A: a very personal aspect for each Transformer, which serve a similar function as clothes do to humans. They are a reflection of the owner  Q: How do the vehicles reflect the personality of the transformers? A: a similar function as clothes do to humans  Q: What else can you tell me about the transformers? A: Transformers have been known to keep the same alt mode for thousands of years  <sep> FOLLOWUP_Q: Why don't transformers change into a ship or plane and then back into a car?
Output: Yes
CONTEXT: The Transformers aren't very well explored in the Michael Bay movies, so we'll have to judge according to the other (better explored) continuities. While the process of switching alternate modes in the movie seemed effortless, it might not have been. In other continuities the switch is either energy consuming or a major physical operation. So just changing to another vehicle might be a very expensive step that one does not take lightly. Also, the alt-mode seems to be a very personal aspect for each Transformer, which serve a similar function as clothes do to humans. They are a reflection of the owner, and once it is chosen it tends to stay the same. Transformers have been known to keep the same alt mode for thousands of years, which isn't really that long when you remember that their life span can stretch into the millions of years.  <sep>  Q: Why do the Transformers always transform into the same cars? A: just changing to another vehicle might be a very expensive step that one does not take lightly  Q: Why is changing into another vehicle so difficult? A: the alt-mode seems to be a very personal aspect for each Transformer, which serve a similar function as clothes do to humans  Q: What is the alt-mode and why is it significant? A: a very personal aspect for each Transformer, which serve a similar function as clothes do to humans. They are a reflection of the owner  Q: How do the vehicles reflect the personality of the transformers? A: a similar function as clothes do to humans  Q: What else can you tell me about the transformers? A: Transformers have been known to keep the same alt mode for thousands of years  <sep> FOLLOWUP_Q: What makes a transformer change their alt-mode?
Output: No
CONTEXT: How Bruce Banner found the Avengers: When Banner was aboard the Hellicarrier, his gamma ray search algorithm had worked out where the Tesseract was (Stark Tower), but before he could tell anyone Loki's machinations kicked in and he turned into the Hulk. After he went back to being Bruce Banner, he just found his way to Stark Tower, where the rest of the Avengers had assembled. How Thor found the Avengers: This one's a bit more problematic. Thor seems to have the ability to track down Loki. Witness how Thor knew Loki was held inside the jet after he was captured by S.H.I.E.L.D.. How he does that isn't known. So I'm assuming that, however he does it, Thor simply tracked down Loki to Stark Tower.  <sep>  Q: How did Thor and Banner know where to go?
Output: Yes
CONTEXT: How Bruce Banner found the Avengers: When Banner was aboard the Hellicarrier, his gamma ray search algorithm had worked out where the Tesseract was (Stark Tower), but before he could tell anyone Loki's machinations kicked in and he turned into the Hulk. After he went back to being Bruce Banner, he just found his way to Stark Tower, where the rest of the Avengers had assembled. How Thor found the Avengers: This one's a bit more problematic. Thor seems to have the ability to track down Loki. Witness how Thor knew Loki was held inside the jet after he was captured by S.H.I.E.L.D.. How he does that isn't known. So I'm assuming that, however he does it, Thor simply tracked down Loki to Stark Tower.  <sep>  Q: How did Thor and Banner know where to go? A: After he went back to being Bruce Banner, he just found his way to Stark Tower, where the rest of the Avengers had assembled  <sep> FOLLOWUP_Q: How do Banner and Thor know that they need to go to the tower?
Output: Yes
CONTEXT: How Bruce Banner found the Avengers: When Banner was aboard the Hellicarrier, his gamma ray search algorithm had worked out where the Tesseract was (Stark Tower), but before he could tell anyone Loki's machinations kicked in and he turned into the Hulk. After he went back to being Bruce Banner, he just found his way to Stark Tower, where the rest of the Avengers had assembled. How Thor found the Avengers: This one's a bit more problematic. Thor seems to have the ability to track down Loki. Witness how Thor knew Loki was held inside the jet after he was captured by S.H.I.E.L.D.. How he does that isn't known. So I'm assuming that, however he does it, Thor simply tracked down Loki to Stark Tower.  <sep>  Q: How did Thor and Banner know where to go? A: After he went back to being Bruce Banner, he just found his way to Stark Tower, where the rest of the Avengers had assembled  Q: How do Banner and Thor know that they need to go to the tower? A: How he does that isn't known. So I'm assuming that, however he does it, Thor simply tracked down Loki to Stark Tower  <sep> FOLLOWUP_Q: What happens after they track down Loki?
Output: Yes
CONTEXT: How Bruce Banner found the Avengers: When Banner was aboard the Hellicarrier, his gamma ray search algorithm had worked out where the Tesseract was (Stark Tower), but before he could tell anyone Loki's machinations kicked in and he turned into the Hulk. After he went back to being Bruce Banner, he just found his way to Stark Tower, where the rest of the Avengers had assembled. How Thor found the Avengers: This one's a bit more problematic. Thor seems to have the ability to track down Loki. Witness how Thor knew Loki was held inside the jet after he was captured by S.H.I.E.L.D.. How he does that isn't known. So I'm assuming that, however he does it, Thor simply tracked down Loki to Stark Tower.  <sep>  Q: How did Thor and Banner know where to go? A: After he went back to being Bruce Banner, he just found his way to Stark Tower, where the rest of the Avengers had assembled  Q: How do Banner and Thor know that they need to go to the tower? A: How he does that isn't known. So I'm assuming that, however he does it, Thor simply tracked down Loki to Stark Tower  Q: What happens after they track down Loki? A: Thor seems to have the ability to track down Loki. Witness how Thor knew Loki was held inside the jet after he was captured by S.H.I.E.L.D  <sep> FOLLOWUP_Q: Do you have any other interesting facts you'd like to share?
Output: Yes
CONTEXT: How Bruce Banner found the Avengers: When Banner was aboard the Hellicarrier, his gamma ray search algorithm had worked out where the Tesseract was (Stark Tower), but before he could tell anyone Loki's machinations kicked in and he turned into the Hulk. After he went back to being Bruce Banner, he just found his way to Stark Tower, where the rest of the Avengers had assembled. How Thor found the Avengers: This one's a bit more problematic. Thor seems to have the ability to track down Loki. Witness how Thor knew Loki was held inside the jet after he was captured by S.H.I.E.L.D.. How he does that isn't known. So I'm assuming that, however he does it, Thor simply tracked down Loki to Stark Tower.  <sep>  Q: How did Thor and Banner know where to go? A: After he went back to being Bruce Banner, he just found his way to Stark Tower, where the rest of the Avengers had assembled  Q: How do Banner and Thor know that they need to go to the tower? A: How he does that isn't known. So I'm assuming that, however he does it, Thor simply tracked down Loki to Stark Tower  Q: What happens after they track down Loki? A: Thor seems to have the ability to track down Loki. Witness how Thor knew Loki was held inside the jet after he was captured by S.H.I.E.L.D  <sep> FOLLOWUP_Q: So are Thor and Loki connected somehow?
Output: No
CONTEXT: How Bruce Banner found the Avengers: When Banner was aboard the Hellicarrier, his gamma ray search algorithm had worked out where the Tesseract was (Stark Tower), but before he could tell anyone Loki's machinations kicked in and he turned into the Hulk. After he went back to being Bruce Banner, he just found his way to Stark Tower, where the rest of the Avengers had assembled. How Thor found the Avengers: This one's a bit more problematic. Thor seems to have the ability to track down Loki. Witness how Thor knew Loki was held inside the jet after he was captured by S.H.I.E.L.D.. How he does that isn't known. So I'm assuming that, however he does it, Thor simply tracked down Loki to Stark Tower.  <sep>  Q: How did Thor and Banner know where to go? A: After he went back to being Bruce Banner, he just found his way to Stark Tower, where the rest of the Avengers had assembled  Q: How do Banner and Thor know that they need to go to the tower? A: How he does that isn't known. So I'm assuming that, however he does it, Thor simply tracked down Loki to Stark Tower  Q: What happens after they track down Loki? A: Thor seems to have the ability to track down Loki. Witness how Thor knew Loki was held inside the jet after he was captured by S.H.I.E.L.D  Q: Do you have any other interesting facts you'd like to share? A: When Banner was aboard the Hellicarrier, his gamma ray search algorithm had worked out where the Tesseract was (Stark Tower  <sep> FOLLOWUP_Q: What is the significance of the Tesseract?
Output: No
CONTEXT: It basically emotionally connects the viewer to the action or event in question. I guess that viewers these days want to feel as though they're in the thick of the action instead of feeling somewhat isolated from it. The camera lens (or glass in front of the lens) getting dirty tells the viewer that the camera is right up close and that you (as the viewer) are involved in this.  <sep>  Q: Why do you see blood on the camera lens so much in movies now?
Output: Yes
CONTEXT: It basically emotionally connects the viewer to the action or event in question. I guess that viewers these days want to feel as though they're in the thick of the action instead of feeling somewhat isolated from it. The camera lens (or glass in front of the lens) getting dirty tells the viewer that the camera is right up close and that you (as the viewer) are involved in this.  <sep>  Q: Why do you see blood on the camera lens so much in movies now? A: It basically emotionally connects the viewer to the action or event in question  <sep> FOLLOWUP_Q: but doesn't it break the suspension of disbelief?
Output: Yes
CONTEXT: It basically emotionally connects the viewer to the action or event in question. I guess that viewers these days want to feel as though they're in the thick of the action instead of feeling somewhat isolated from it. The camera lens (or glass in front of the lens) getting dirty tells the viewer that the camera is right up close and that you (as the viewer) are involved in this.  <sep>  Q: Why do you see blood on the camera lens so much in movies now? A: It basically emotionally connects the viewer to the action or event in question  Q: but doesn't it break the suspension of disbelief? A: I guess that viewers these days want to feel as though they're in the thick of the action instead of feeling somewhat isolated from it  <sep> FOLLOWUP_Q: Is it a meta thing to convince the viewer the producers can't control it?
Output: No
CONTEXT: It basically emotionally connects the viewer to the action or event in question. I guess that viewers these days want to feel as though they're in the thick of the action instead of feeling somewhat isolated from it. The camera lens (or glass in front of the lens) getting dirty tells the viewer that the camera is right up close and that you (as the viewer) are involved in this.  <sep>  Q: Why do you see blood on the camera lens so much in movies now? A: It basically emotionally connects the viewer to the action or event in question  Q: but doesn't it break the suspension of disbelief? A: I guess that viewers these days want to feel as though they're in the thick of the action instead of feeling somewhat isolated from it  <sep> FOLLOWUP_Q: When did they start doing this in movies?
Output: No
CONTEXT: It basically emotionally connects the viewer to the action or event in question. I guess that viewers these days want to feel as though they're in the thick of the action instead of feeling somewhat isolated from it. The camera lens (or glass in front of the lens) getting dirty tells the viewer that the camera is right up close and that you (as the viewer) are involved in this.  <sep>  Q: Why do you see blood on the camera lens so much in movies now? A: It basically emotionally connects the viewer to the action or event in question  Q: but doesn't it break the suspension of disbelief? A: I guess that viewers these days want to feel as though they're in the thick of the action instead of feeling somewhat isolated from it  <sep> FOLLOWUP_Q: Has there been any public outcry regarding this?
Output: No
CONTEXT: The latter. It's typical movie, and fairy tale, plot armor. It only works that way in movies. Well, that and any real life event where a book, bible, badge or locket stops a bullet, Arrow or piece of shrapnel. President Roosevelt is famous for that. But it's mostly dumb luck and not something anyone should rely on.  <sep>  Q: Why is it so Hard to kill with an Arrow
Output: Yes
CONTEXT: The latter. It's typical movie, and fairy tale, plot armor. It only works that way in movies. Well, that and any real life event where a book, bible, badge or locket stops a bullet, Arrow or piece of shrapnel. President Roosevelt is famous for that. But it's mostly dumb luck and not something anyone should rely on.  <sep>  Q: Why is it so Hard to kill with an Arrow A: t's mostly dumb luck and not something anyone should rely on  <sep> FOLLOWUP_Q: Why does the queen want Eric dead?
Output: No
CONTEXT: The latter. It's typical movie, and fairy tale, plot armor. It only works that way in movies. Well, that and any real life event where a book, bible, badge or locket stops a bullet, Arrow or piece of shrapnel. President Roosevelt is famous for that. But it's mostly dumb luck and not something anyone should rely on.  <sep>  Q: Why is it so Hard to kill with an Arrow A: t's mostly dumb luck and not something anyone should rely on  <sep> FOLLOWUP_Q: How did the locket not break?
Output: No
CONTEXT: The latter. It's typical movie, and fairy tale, plot armor. It only works that way in movies. Well, that and any real life event where a book, bible, badge or locket stops a bullet, Arrow or piece of shrapnel. President Roosevelt is famous for that. But it's mostly dumb luck and not something anyone should rely on.  <sep>  Q: Why is it so Hard to kill with an Arrow A: t's mostly dumb luck and not something anyone should rely on  <sep> FOLLOWUP_Q: Is Sarah experienced with the bow as she never misses?
Output: No
CONTEXT: I believe there are two things going on here, one with the show, the second with the legal system. First, the show is about the Behavioral Analysis Unit. To capture their guy through interrogation seems wrong with the premise of the show. Using behavior is much more fitting. Second, in the US legal system, all incarcerated (arrested or imprisoned) individuals have the right to an attorney and the right to remain silent. An attorney would advise against them talking, while they both may chose not to talk. Putting either/both of them into a room(s) and interrogating them may not produce any information. Besides, it was far easier for the BAU to detect who was whom from the tick than spending hours in interrogation which may or may not have produced results.  <sep>  Q: Why the confusion over who was arrested in Criminal Minds?
Output: Yes
CONTEXT: I believe there are two things going on here, one with the show, the second with the legal system. First, the show is about the Behavioral Analysis Unit. To capture their guy through interrogation seems wrong with the premise of the show. Using behavior is much more fitting. Second, in the US legal system, all incarcerated (arrested or imprisoned) individuals have the right to an attorney and the right to remain silent. An attorney would advise against them talking, while they both may chose not to talk. Putting either/both of them into a room(s) and interrogating them may not produce any information. Besides, it was far easier for the BAU to detect who was whom from the tick than spending hours in interrogation which may or may not have produced results.  <sep>  Q: Why the confusion over who was arrested in Criminal Minds? A: I believe there are two things going on here, one with the show, the second with the legal system  <sep> FOLLOWUP_Q: Which is the more significant?
Output: Yes
CONTEXT: I believe there are two things going on here, one with the show, the second with the legal system. First, the show is about the Behavioral Analysis Unit. To capture their guy through interrogation seems wrong with the premise of the show. Using behavior is much more fitting. Second, in the US legal system, all incarcerated (arrested or imprisoned) individuals have the right to an attorney and the right to remain silent. An attorney would advise against them talking, while they both may chose not to talk. Putting either/both of them into a room(s) and interrogating them may not produce any information. Besides, it was far easier for the BAU to detect who was whom from the tick than spending hours in interrogation which may or may not have produced results.  <sep>  Q: Why the confusion over who was arrested in Criminal Minds? A: I believe there are two things going on here, one with the show, the second with the legal system  Q: Which is the more significant? A: First, the show is about the Behavioral Analysis Unit. To capture their guy through interrogation seems wrong with the premise of the show. Using behavior is much more fitting  <sep> FOLLOWUP_Q: Is this an aspect of the US justice system I don't know?
Output: No
CONTEXT: It is more likely to have been real imho. Bond is superficially charasmatic and able to make shallow relationships with ease, like his ability to seduce women. However, he has issues forming deep relationships with anyone. His relationships with women usually end quickly with little emotional connection. It is the same in the bar, one minute he is able to impress everyone and become the centre of attention but none of them are actually his friends and he quickly ends up alone again.  <sep>  Q: In Skyfall, was the bar scene a daydream or was it real? A: It is more likely to have been real imho  <sep> FOLLOWUP_Q: Why do you say this when it is not really explained in the film?
Output: Yes
CONTEXT: It is more likely to have been real imho. Bond is superficially charasmatic and able to make shallow relationships with ease, like his ability to seduce women. However, he has issues forming deep relationships with anyone. His relationships with women usually end quickly with little emotional connection. It is the same in the bar, one minute he is able to impress everyone and become the centre of attention but none of them are actually his friends and he quickly ends up alone again.  <sep>  Q: In Skyfall, was the bar scene a daydream or was it real? A: It is more likely to have been real imho  Q: Why do you say this when it is not really explained in the film? A: Bond is superficially charasmatic and able to make shallow relationships with ease, like his ability to seduce women  <sep> FOLLOWUP_Q: What does his charisma have to do with the dream sequence?
Output: Yes
CONTEXT: It is more likely to have been real imho. Bond is superficially charasmatic and able to make shallow relationships with ease, like his ability to seduce women. However, he has issues forming deep relationships with anyone. His relationships with women usually end quickly with little emotional connection. It is the same in the bar, one minute he is able to impress everyone and become the centre of attention but none of them are actually his friends and he quickly ends up alone again.  <sep>  Q: In Skyfall, was the bar scene a daydream or was it real? A: It is more likely to have been real imho  Q: Why do you say this when it is not really explained in the film? A: Bond is superficially charasmatic and able to make shallow relationships with ease, like his ability to seduce women  Q: What does his charisma have to do with the dream sequence? A: It is the same in the bar, one minute he is able to impress everyone and become the centre of attention but none of them are actually his friends and he quickly ends up alone again  <sep> FOLLOWUP_Q: So do you think his lack of charisma suggests this is a dream?
Output: Yes
CONTEXT: It is more likely to have been real imho. Bond is superficially charasmatic and able to make shallow relationships with ease, like his ability to seduce women. However, he has issues forming deep relationships with anyone. His relationships with women usually end quickly with little emotional connection. It is the same in the bar, one minute he is able to impress everyone and become the centre of attention but none of them are actually his friends and he quickly ends up alone again.  <sep>  Q: In Skyfall, was the bar scene a daydream or was it real? A: It is more likely to have been real imho  Q: Why do you say this when it is not really explained in the film? A: Bond is superficially charasmatic and able to make shallow relationships with ease, like his ability to seduce women  Q: What does his charisma have to do with the dream sequence? A: It is the same in the bar, one minute he is able to impress everyone and become the centre of attention but none of them are actually his friends and he quickly ends up alone again  Q: So do you think his lack of charisma suggests this is a dream? A: he has issues forming deep relationships with anyone. His relationships with women usually end quickly with little emotional connection  <sep> FOLLOWUP_Q: Does Bond never form a deep relationship with anyone at all?
Output: No
CONTEXT: It is more likely to have been real imho. Bond is superficially charasmatic and able to make shallow relationships with ease, like his ability to seduce women. However, he has issues forming deep relationships with anyone. His relationships with women usually end quickly with little emotional connection. It is the same in the bar, one minute he is able to impress everyone and become the centre of attention but none of them are actually his friends and he quickly ends up alone again.  <sep>  Q: In Skyfall, was the bar scene a daydream or was it real? A: It is more likely to have been real imho  Q: Why do you say this when it is not really explained in the film? A: Bond is superficially charasmatic and able to make shallow relationships with ease, like his ability to seduce women  Q: What does his charisma have to do with the dream sequence? A: It is the same in the bar, one minute he is able to impress everyone and become the centre of attention but none of them are actually his friends and he quickly ends up alone again  Q: So do you think his lack of charisma suggests this is a dream? A: he has issues forming deep relationships with anyone. His relationships with women usually end quickly with little emotional connection  <sep> FOLLOWUP_Q: Do you have any other suggestions as to why this is definitely real?
Output: No
CONTEXT: Oskar does not become a vampire in the book. It is Håkan who becomes a vampire in the book. Also in the book, it is disclosed that Eli is a boy who was castrated years ago when he was converted to a vampire. In the movie, neither Håkan becomes a vampire nor is Eli disclosed to be a boy. Oskar and Eli flee. And as atm mentions in the comment, Oskar will grow old just like Håkan.  <sep>  Q: What happened to Eli and Oskar in Let the right one in?
Output: Yes
CONTEXT: Oskar does not become a vampire in the book. It is Håkan who becomes a vampire in the book. Also in the book, it is disclosed that Eli is a boy who was castrated years ago when he was converted to a vampire. In the movie, neither Håkan becomes a vampire nor is Eli disclosed to be a boy. Oskar and Eli flee. And as atm mentions in the comment, Oskar will grow old just like Håkan.  <sep>  Q: What happened to Eli and Oskar in Let the right one in? A: neither Håkan becomes a vampire nor is Eli disclosed to be a boy. Oskar and Eli flee. And as atm mentions in the comment, Oskar will grow old just like Håkan  Q: Can you tell me anything else about this movie? A: Oskar will grow old just like Håkan  <sep> FOLLOWUP_Q: Is there anything else you can tell me?
Output: Yes
CONTEXT: Oskar does not become a vampire in the book. It is Håkan who becomes a vampire in the book. Also in the book, it is disclosed that Eli is a boy who was castrated years ago when he was converted to a vampire. In the movie, neither Håkan becomes a vampire nor is Eli disclosed to be a boy. Oskar and Eli flee. And as atm mentions in the comment, Oskar will grow old just like Håkan.  <sep>  Q: What happened to Eli and Oskar in Let the right one in? A: neither Håkan becomes a vampire nor is Eli disclosed to be a boy. Oskar and Eli flee. And as atm mentions in the comment, Oskar will grow old just like Håkan  <sep> FOLLOWUP_Q: Did they mix blood?
Output: No
CONTEXT: Oskar does not become a vampire in the book. It is Håkan who becomes a vampire in the book. Also in the book, it is disclosed that Eli is a boy who was castrated years ago when he was converted to a vampire. In the movie, neither Håkan becomes a vampire nor is Eli disclosed to be a boy. Oskar and Eli flee. And as atm mentions in the comment, Oskar will grow old just like Håkan.  <sep>  Q: What happened to Eli and Oskar in Let the right one in? A: neither Håkan becomes a vampire nor is Eli disclosed to be a boy. Oskar and Eli flee. And as atm mentions in the comment, Oskar will grow old just like Håkan  Q: Can you tell me anything else about this movie? A: Oskar will grow old just like Håkan  <sep> FOLLOWUP_Q: How old is Hakan?
Output: No
CONTEXT: Oskar does not become a vampire in the book. It is Håkan who becomes a vampire in the book. Also in the book, it is disclosed that Eli is a boy who was castrated years ago when he was converted to a vampire. In the movie, neither Håkan becomes a vampire nor is Eli disclosed to be a boy. Oskar and Eli flee. And as atm mentions in the comment, Oskar will grow old just like Håkan.  <sep>  Q: What happened to Eli and Oskar in Let the right one in? A: neither Håkan becomes a vampire nor is Eli disclosed to be a boy. Oskar and Eli flee. And as atm mentions in the comment, Oskar will grow old just like Håkan  Q: Can you tell me anything else about this movie? A: Oskar will grow old just like Håkan  Q: Is there anything else you can tell me? A: Eli is a boy who was castrated years ago when he was converted to a vampire  <sep> FOLLOWUP_Q: Oh wow, I see, why was he castrated?
Output: No
CONTEXT: If snowballs and Twinkies still survive, then I would presume that there was also plenty of tinned and dried food to be found in shops and warehouses. I'm also fairly sure that, despite the zombies, there was plenty of electricity (the movie doesn't make clear whether this is from local generators or from the grid, but there is clearly electricity in many scenes including the theme park at the end) so frozen food will still be available. It is not a serious movie and it would probably be petty to point out the inconsistency of the existence of network power in a world dominated by zombies where nobody is running the power plants or maintaining the grid. It certainly didn't detract from my enjoyment of the movie.  <sep>  Q: What do main characters survive on during the zombie apocalypse?
Output: Yes
CONTEXT: If snowballs and Twinkies still survive, then I would presume that there was also plenty of tinned and dried food to be found in shops and warehouses. I'm also fairly sure that, despite the zombies, there was plenty of electricity (the movie doesn't make clear whether this is from local generators or from the grid, but there is clearly electricity in many scenes including the theme park at the end) so frozen food will still be available. It is not a serious movie and it would probably be petty to point out the inconsistency of the existence of network power in a world dominated by zombies where nobody is running the power plants or maintaining the grid. It certainly didn't detract from my enjoyment of the movie.  <sep>  Q: What do main characters survive on during the zombie apocalypse? A: tinned and dried food  <sep> FOLLOWUP_Q: Did all the grocery stores stop carrying fresh food?
Output: Yes
CONTEXT: It's a replaceable - some say rechargeable - power cell. You can see a spare on Ronon's belt in many shots, but there is as far as I can recall only one time you see him actually replace the power cell. In the tavern scene near the beginning of S2E7 "Instinct," he replaces the cell near the end of the conversation, just before he stands up. In S4E5 "Travelers" at about the 26 minute mark, you see Shepard ask Larrin if she has more "of these," referring to either the weapon, or the power cell he removes from the depleted gun. They are both weaponless because the gun is out of power. The show never actually shows how he replaces/recharges the cells, though. Probably for the same reason they never show the SG teams loading ammo into magazines. :)  <sep>  Q: Why doesn't Ronon's gun run out of power?
Output: Yes
CONTEXT: It's a replaceable - some say rechargeable - power cell. You can see a spare on Ronon's belt in many shots, but there is as far as I can recall only one time you see him actually replace the power cell. In the tavern scene near the beginning of S2E7 "Instinct," he replaces the cell near the end of the conversation, just before he stands up. In S4E5 "Travelers" at about the 26 minute mark, you see Shepard ask Larrin if she has more "of these," referring to either the weapon, or the power cell he removes from the depleted gun. They are both weaponless because the gun is out of power. The show never actually shows how he replaces/recharges the cells, though. Probably for the same reason they never show the SG teams loading ammo into magazines. :)  <sep>  Q: Why doesn't Ronon's gun run out of power? A: It's a replaceable - some say rechargeable - power cell  <sep> FOLLOWUP_Q: How does he recharge this power cell gun?
Output: Yes
CONTEXT: It's a replaceable - some say rechargeable - power cell. You can see a spare on Ronon's belt in many shots, but there is as far as I can recall only one time you see him actually replace the power cell. In the tavern scene near the beginning of S2E7 "Instinct," he replaces the cell near the end of the conversation, just before he stands up. In S4E5 "Travelers" at about the 26 minute mark, you see Shepard ask Larrin if she has more "of these," referring to either the weapon, or the power cell he removes from the depleted gun. They are both weaponless because the gun is out of power. The show never actually shows how he replaces/recharges the cells, though. Probably for the same reason they never show the SG teams loading ammo into magazines. :)  <sep>  Q: Why doesn't Ronon's gun run out of power? A: It's a replaceable - some say rechargeable - power cell  Q: How does he recharge this power cell gun? A: You can see a spare on Ronon's belt in many shots, but there is as far as I can recall only one time you see him actually replace the power cell  <sep> FOLLOWUP_Q: When does he do this exactly, I can't recall seeing him recharge it?
Output: Yes
CONTEXT: It's a replaceable - some say rechargeable - power cell. You can see a spare on Ronon's belt in many shots, but there is as far as I can recall only one time you see him actually replace the power cell. In the tavern scene near the beginning of S2E7 "Instinct," he replaces the cell near the end of the conversation, just before he stands up. In S4E5 "Travelers" at about the 26 minute mark, you see Shepard ask Larrin if she has more "of these," referring to either the weapon, or the power cell he removes from the depleted gun. They are both weaponless because the gun is out of power. The show never actually shows how he replaces/recharges the cells, though. Probably for the same reason they never show the SG teams loading ammo into magazines. :)  <sep>  Q: Why doesn't Ronon's gun run out of power? A: It's a replaceable - some say rechargeable - power cell  Q: How does he recharge this power cell gun? A: You can see a spare on Ronon's belt in many shots, but there is as far as I can recall only one time you see him actually replace the power cell  Q: When does he do this exactly, I can't recall seeing him recharge it? A: In the tavern scene near the beginning of S2E7 "Instinct," he replaces the cell near the end of the conversation, just before he stands up  <sep> FOLLOWUP_Q: Is this the only time he is seen recharging the gun?
Output: Yes
CONTEXT: It's a replaceable - some say rechargeable - power cell. You can see a spare on Ronon's belt in many shots, but there is as far as I can recall only one time you see him actually replace the power cell. In the tavern scene near the beginning of S2E7 "Instinct," he replaces the cell near the end of the conversation, just before he stands up. In S4E5 "Travelers" at about the 26 minute mark, you see Shepard ask Larrin if she has more "of these," referring to either the weapon, or the power cell he removes from the depleted gun. They are both weaponless because the gun is out of power. The show never actually shows how he replaces/recharges the cells, though. Probably for the same reason they never show the SG teams loading ammo into magazines. :)  <sep>  Q: Why doesn't Ronon's gun run out of power? A: It's a replaceable - some say rechargeable - power cell  Q: How does he recharge this power cell gun? A: You can see a spare on Ronon's belt in many shots, but there is as far as I can recall only one time you see him actually replace the power cell  Q: When does he do this exactly, I can't recall seeing him recharge it? A: In the tavern scene near the beginning of S2E7 "Instinct," he replaces the cell near the end of the conversation, just before he stands up  Q: Is this the only time he is seen recharging the gun? A: The show never actually shows how he replaces/recharges the cells, though  <sep> FOLLOWUP_Q: Do you have any other facts about the weapons in the show?
Output: Yes
CONTEXT: It's a replaceable - some say rechargeable - power cell. You can see a spare on Ronon's belt in many shots, but there is as far as I can recall only one time you see him actually replace the power cell. In the tavern scene near the beginning of S2E7 "Instinct," he replaces the cell near the end of the conversation, just before he stands up. In S4E5 "Travelers" at about the 26 minute mark, you see Shepard ask Larrin if she has more "of these," referring to either the weapon, or the power cell he removes from the depleted gun. They are both weaponless because the gun is out of power. The show never actually shows how he replaces/recharges the cells, though. Probably for the same reason they never show the SG teams loading ammo into magazines. :)  <sep>  Q: Why doesn't Ronon's gun run out of power? A: It's a replaceable - some say rechargeable - power cell  Q: How does he recharge this power cell gun? A: You can see a spare on Ronon's belt in many shots, but there is as far as I can recall only one time you see him actually replace the power cell  Q: When does he do this exactly, I can't recall seeing him recharge it? A: In the tavern scene near the beginning of S2E7 "Instinct," he replaces the cell near the end of the conversation, just before he stands up  Q: Is this the only time he is seen recharging the gun? A: The show never actually shows how he replaces/recharges the cells, though  Q: Do you have any other facts about the weapons in the show? A: hey never show the SG teams loading ammo into magazines.  <sep> FOLLOWUP_Q: Can you give me any more facts?
Output: Yes
CONTEXT: It's a replaceable - some say rechargeable - power cell. You can see a spare on Ronon's belt in many shots, but there is as far as I can recall only one time you see him actually replace the power cell. In the tavern scene near the beginning of S2E7 "Instinct," he replaces the cell near the end of the conversation, just before he stands up. In S4E5 "Travelers" at about the 26 minute mark, you see Shepard ask Larrin if she has more "of these," referring to either the weapon, or the power cell he removes from the depleted gun. They are both weaponless because the gun is out of power. The show never actually shows how he replaces/recharges the cells, though. Probably for the same reason they never show the SG teams loading ammo into magazines. :)  <sep>  Q: Why doesn't Ronon's gun run out of power? A: It's a replaceable - some say rechargeable - power cell  Q: How does he recharge this power cell gun? A: You can see a spare on Ronon's belt in many shots, but there is as far as I can recall only one time you see him actually replace the power cell  Q: When does he do this exactly, I can't recall seeing him recharge it? A: In the tavern scene near the beginning of S2E7 "Instinct," he replaces the cell near the end of the conversation, just before he stands up  Q: Is this the only time he is seen recharging the gun? A: The show never actually shows how he replaces/recharges the cells, though  Q: Do you have any other facts about the weapons in the show? A: hey never show the SG teams loading ammo into magazines.  <sep> FOLLOWUP_Q: What guns do the other SG teams use?
Output: No
CONTEXT: Firstly, there's a chance Wednesday would sense them coming, and would get away. They couldn't have a decent conversation then, and Mr. World made it very clear they wanted to part on respectful terms, having made their proposal. However, in the room Wednesday and Shadow were kept, Media, World, and Technical Boy were able to enter unobstructed, through the only exit, so it was very much their ground. Secondly, it was a show of power. Wednesday is on the wrong side of the law (after the robbery), but the new gods aren't - or at least, they're useful to the law, with the satellites and all the like. They wanted to show Wednesday that they had the capability to track him if the wanted, and that he had something, namely the whole of law enforcement, to be aware of. Thirdly, I think it's the matter of not getting their hands dirty. Gods, both in the novel and in the series so far, operate through proxies - Wednesday has Shadow, Technical Boy had those dumb henchmen. It's possible (though unlikely) that the New Gods don't want to be on the wrong side of law enforcement as well, and the law enforcement was looking for the bank robber anyway. In this case Mr. World simply used the policy in place of his own men, but disposed of them as they became unnecessary (which could be seen as yet another show of power).  <sep>  Q: Why did Mr.World need to involve the police?
Output: Yes
CONTEXT: Firstly, there's a chance Wednesday would sense them coming, and would get away. They couldn't have a decent conversation then, and Mr. World made it very clear they wanted to part on respectful terms, having made their proposal. However, in the room Wednesday and Shadow were kept, Media, World, and Technical Boy were able to enter unobstructed, through the only exit, so it was very much their ground. Secondly, it was a show of power. Wednesday is on the wrong side of the law (after the robbery), but the new gods aren't - or at least, they're useful to the law, with the satellites and all the like. They wanted to show Wednesday that they had the capability to track him if the wanted, and that he had something, namely the whole of law enforcement, to be aware of. Thirdly, I think it's the matter of not getting their hands dirty. Gods, both in the novel and in the series so far, operate through proxies - Wednesday has Shadow, Technical Boy had those dumb henchmen. It's possible (though unlikely) that the New Gods don't want to be on the wrong side of law enforcement as well, and the law enforcement was looking for the bank robber anyway. In this case Mr. World simply used the policy in place of his own men, but disposed of them as they became unnecessary (which could be seen as yet another show of power).  <sep>  Q: Why did Mr.World need to involve the police? A: They couldn't have a decent conversation then, and Mr. World made it very clear they wanted to part on respectful terms, having made their proposal  <sep> FOLLOWUP_Q: Why did Mr World have to be so violent?
Output: Yes
CONTEXT: Firstly, there's a chance Wednesday would sense them coming, and would get away. They couldn't have a decent conversation then, and Mr. World made it very clear they wanted to part on respectful terms, having made their proposal. However, in the room Wednesday and Shadow were kept, Media, World, and Technical Boy were able to enter unobstructed, through the only exit, so it was very much their ground. Secondly, it was a show of power. Wednesday is on the wrong side of the law (after the robbery), but the new gods aren't - or at least, they're useful to the law, with the satellites and all the like. They wanted to show Wednesday that they had the capability to track him if the wanted, and that he had something, namely the whole of law enforcement, to be aware of. Thirdly, I think it's the matter of not getting their hands dirty. Gods, both in the novel and in the series so far, operate through proxies - Wednesday has Shadow, Technical Boy had those dumb henchmen. It's possible (though unlikely) that the New Gods don't want to be on the wrong side of law enforcement as well, and the law enforcement was looking for the bank robber anyway. In this case Mr. World simply used the policy in place of his own men, but disposed of them as they became unnecessary (which could be seen as yet another show of power).  <sep>  Q: Why did Mr.World need to involve the police? A: They couldn't have a decent conversation then, and Mr. World made it very clear they wanted to part on respectful terms, having made their proposal  Q: Why did Mr World have to be so violent? A: Mr. World simply used the policy in place of his own men, but disposed of them as they became unnecessary (which could be seen as yet another show of power  <sep> FOLLOWUP_Q: Why not just go to the motel room?
Output: Yes